Thursday, February 8, 2018

Encounters With Real Cryptids


From the Supernaturalist Channel comes some true encounter stories with some frightening cryptids. How many creatures are out there that have gone undocumented?

125 comments:

  1. FIRST!!!

    the munns report is in the shitter where it belongs

    stay firsty my friends

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When pseudosceptics, not to mention intellectual throw backs like Stuey, are confronted with conflicting facts, they experience what is referred to as cognitive dissonance. These people resolve conflicting ideas by means of preserving consistency in their belief systems. For example, if a Bigfoot obsessed pseudosceptic happens to discover that footprint evidence is now being peer reviewed and published, they would of course be facing some serious evidence that their deeply held beliefs are wrong. At this point it would be typical for them to find a means of somehow dismissing that evidence for their prior convictions. Given that their beliefs have been reinforced for many years, have likely become a major aspect of their identity, it means letting go is extremely difficult for them. They cope by a behaviour psychologists call motivated reasoning. This is the unconscious tendency of said people to mold their processing of information to conclusions that suit a preferred end.

      I find perfect examples of this in Stuey’s behaviour whereby harassing people on the internet who are merely convinced by evidence for the existence of “Bigfoot”, has become a major aspect of his identity. To belong to a “intellectually superior” cyber social group that makes him feel better than some people, to help him forget his social and emotional discontent. It’s a shame that he foundations such pedestals are made on sand. For example...
      • Stuey when confronted with proof that Patty is real (cognitive dissonance) - “Philip Morris’ costume that he didn’t even make, and which in fact looks nothing like Patty, means the subject in the PGF is guy in a costume (motivated reasoning).”
      • Stuey when confronted with proof that “Bigfoot” footprint evidence is authentic (more cognitive dissonance) - “it’s all down to an impossible thousand of years’ old, globe trotting hoaxing conspiracy (more motivated reasoning).”

      Delete
    2. The Munns Report - more cognitive dissonance.

      : )

      Delete
    3. Wow, still triggered about that suit...got suit, yep, looks familiar to. 8=> 0:

      Delete
    4. Hardly Stuey... Just exposing you and your little religion. I’m bored... and it’s more of a challenge to me than anything you can offer as a logical argument against “Bigfoot”.

      Delete
    5. This thing has been explained. It's been explained. This is the end. I have to admit it. I don't want to admit this. This has been a long-running debate lasting decades. I have been hopeful this might end otherwise. I have been hopeful this guy had filmed bigfoot.
      But this time-frame thing for the film development, is just killing this thing. All of the other arguments, pro or con, are just [i]specious[i] compared to this.

      Look, I wanted to believe in this thing. I really did. And I never saw a zipper, never saw convincing enough evidence denouncing Patterson's character (he was a man with cancer, an expensive and horrific illness).

      But this film development thing--there's just no getting around it. Even if that lab they keep discussing had received the film and developed it, they didn't develop it by October 21, 1967, after receiving it only on the night of October 20. That just isn't enough time. It doesn't matter about the courier, or whether the lab is remembering right. the time-frame--which is nailed in because Patterson himself nailed it in when he talked to the reporter on the 20th--the time-frame, just doesn't work. There just wasn't time to develop this 36-hour minimum development time, film.

      I've followed this debate for decades. I've wanted to believe. I really have. I feel defeated, dismayed, saddened, bored. But there is just nothing else that can be said. Bataan surrendered to the Japanese. Gore lost to Bush through the Supreme Court.

      And the film just didn't have time to be developed, and that means this thing is a fake, a hoax. It doesn't matter about the memories, or whether an air courier was used. There just wasn't time to develop the film by Saturday morning. There just WASN'T TIME.

      This has been a classic debate, a long-lived debate. But for the believers, or those, like me, who have wanted to believe, it has been a let-down.
      This was a very, very, very good hoax. But it was a hoax, a fake.

      Delete
    6. Consider that since there isn't a logical argument for the existence of Bigfoot there is no need to present a logical argument against Bigfoot , furthermore despite all your blathering and cut and paste you've failed to prove the existence of Bigfoot, you're arguments are therefore meaningless

      Delete
    7. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh the timeline conjecture. Precisely, the smoke & mirrors method that pseudosceptics like to use for their shortfalls on finding a god damn monkey suit. For example... Entering an exchange that requires a mere theory of events to something that is based on another theory of events that can't be shown to be false either way, and is futile. It's asking for an unfounded stance to be responded to with even more vague unfounded stance. It goes around in circles and by the end is still never gonna be an accurate reflection of what actually happened in that timeline. Pseudosceptics also make a lot of assumptions that because the timelines is shady, that the reasons behind this must mean that the subject in the footage is fake. Such a leap is founded on mere bias. A desperate attempt at closure that isn’t going to wash.

      What we DO have, is the footage with the subject in it. What we do have is 100 years of costume and SFX to falsify what we see in that footage. An enthusiast could quite simply assume that the REAL timeline verifies the footage “somehow”. It would be attacked with the same labels of conjecture that it would rightly deserve. Shut up and find a god damn magic monkey suit already.

      Delete
    8. “Consider that since there isn't a logical argument for the existence of Bigfoot” is perverse special pleading. The case for the existence of “Bigfoot” is put forward with the thousands of years of oral histories & modern reports, much of which describe primate behaviour when there have allegedly been no recognised primates in North America. It’s put forward with the fact that not only have footprints been found all over those same regions for the past 60 years, but that evidence is now being shown to exists to the most smallest anatomical detail in similar physical evidence in China.

      By referencing this evidence, I demonstrate that there is reliable scientific data for what is commonly referred to as “Bigfoot”. I also make your 8 years of religious, obsessive behaviour just a fat big waste time.

      Delete
    9. How about YOU shut up and just find the god damn magic monkey?

      Delete
    10. Stories and footprints are not evidence, who's the pleading one here ? Prove me wrong and show scientific documentation of sasquatch, even your hereo Meldrum has none, you're sad

      Delete
    11. You say I have my facts wrong. I have only one fact I'm looking at: this is 36-hour development time film. 36 hour. That's from the Kodak people themselves. In 1967, it took 36 hours to develop it.

      Even if, somehow, this whole air courier business really happened, and the lab was also convinced to operate on a Saturday, apparently at the behest of Al Deatley, THEY STILL DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DEVELOP IT in the time-frame.

      Again, if you can show us, somehow, through actual scientific method, duplication if you will, that it was actually possible to develop that type of film in the amount of hours that would be required for it to be viewed by Saturday and Sunday, (because DeAtley is said to have seen it on Saturday), then you'll reopen this for this argument.

      Right now, I just don't get where you're coming from. But one thing that stands out, unequivocally, is that this film is 36 hour film, and there are not 36 hours between when he sent it off (somehow, blow off that he said he mailed it), and when DeAtley got it, and when the lab got it, and when the lab would have had to have developed it, and when it was viewed for the first time. Second viewings don't count. You have a first viewing first, and it has to be 36 hours after it was given to the lab. Unless, unless you have some definite proof that lab equipment was available in 1967 that could develop this in less than 36 hours--really, in about 14 hours, or maybe 18.

      Delete
    12. If you didn’t notice... The “monkey” ain’t so magic as it’s leavinf physical sign that’s being peer reviewed.

      Oral histories and contemporary reports are in fact anthropological data. Footprint evidence is set at the foundations of field biology. All cognitive dissonance to a crazy little fundie like you of course.

      Delete
    13. Journal of Scienti c Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16

      “This action of the sasquatch foot, as it correlates to these distinctive footprints, is evident and observable in the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. The elevation of the heel, while flexed at the midfoot, concentrates pressure beneath the forefoot. Under appropriate conditions of gait and substrate, this may occasionally produce the distinctive pressure ridge evident in the Titmus cast and other examples (Meldrum 2007). The observable subtleties of correlated form and function within a distinct biomechanical context make this film and associated footprints render the cliché adage “Oh, that’s just a man in a fur suit” rather vacuous.

      This interpretive model of the sasquatch foot function received dramatic corroboration during a visit to China’s Shennongjia Nature Reserve, in Hubei province. It was there that in 1995, a park ranger, Mr. Yuan Yuhao, claimed to have witnessed an upright, hair-covered hominoid, a yeren (Chinese—wildman) while patrolling within the park (Meldrum & Zhou 2012). He was climbing a slope near the head of a valley at an elevation of approximately 2100 m. The site, which I inspected, is a mosaic of fir forest and sedge meadows, not unlike the Rocky Mountain habitat I am so familiar with. Yuan observed the yeren through binoculars at a distance of approximately 500 m. It was covered in reddish brown hair, reclining, and sunning itself on the exposed facing slope. When Yuan called out to it, it returned his gaze. Instead of the expected snout and prick ears atop its head, he described a flat face. Furthermore, it arose and walked away bipedally into the nearby tree line. Yuan estimated its height at 2.3 m. He subsequently tracked the creature and cast a clear pair of its footprints on the banks of a spring.

      The casts measure approximately 38 cm in length, 16.5 cm across the forefoot, and 10 cm across the heel. A distinct midtarsal pressure ridge indicates a significant degree of flexibility in the midfoot (Figure 5, top). Presumably the right and left footprints were left as the yeren squatted beside the spring to drink. This action apparently elevated the hindfoot, concentrating pressure beneath the forefoot distal to the transverse tarsal joint. The plasticity of the moist bare soil resulted in a pressure ridge proximal to the transverse tarsal joint. The deepest points on the cast lie just distal to the pressure ridge, apparently beneath the talonavicular joint medially, and to a lesser degree beneath the cuboid laterally. These two points of concentrated plantar pressure lend a distinctive appearance to the proximal edge of the forefoot ahead of the transverse pressure ridge. The margin is marked by a double convexity. In all distinguishing characteristics the casts resemble those of North American sasquatch footprints, especially those recovered at the Patterson-Gimlin film site. This resemblance not only substantiates the model of foot form and function, but indicates a circum- Pacific distribution to this form of relict hominoid, with its likely origin in Asia (Meldrum 2006).

      Another example to further demonstrate this remarkable consistency of foot form and function comes again from the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State. This example was cast by Paul Freeman on January 14, 1991, along Mill Creek, outside Walla Walla, Washington. The tracks measured nearly 35 cm in length by 13 cm across the ball. The step length ranged from 1.0 to 1.2 m and the trackway was followed for more than two miles. Not only does the cast exhibit the distinctive pressure ridge in the appropriate position and orientation, but the double-convexity formed by the joints of the transverse tarsal joint is evident as well (Figure 5, bottom).”

      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf

      Delete
    14. ^ there we go Stuey. The scientific documentation of “Sasquatch”. Oh asked for. And none of it’s data is conjecture. Let me guess what you have against it... “he said, she said hearsay”? Oh you sure know how science works, don’t you?

      Delete
    15. Right , the same Meldrum drum, guess I win again, you speak up if you ever find any evidence, laters, yawn, you're so predictable

      Delete
    16. Surely you must have something other than mere “timeline he said, she said hearsay conjecture” for “faked footprints”? Is this how science works to a religious loon like you Stuey?

      Delete
    17. Oh... since you love cutting & pasting drivel from JREF, maybe you can get them to dream up a reason not to consider the peer reviewed science they’ve demanded all these years?

      Delete
  2. Re-posting this as I mistakenly placed it in a past post so I'm bringing it up to the current post.

    Don't find as much time to peruse this site as much as I like but do check in from time to time to see if anything major as regards to Bigfoot is taking place. Pretty much the usual characters and stories although I did learn of J.C. Johnson's demise from reading past comments just now. Although I never personally knew him, I remember when he use to occasionally comment on a site called Cryptozoology.com which is now defunct although a Facebook site might still exist.

    I'll sometimes fall asleep with the TV on in my bedroom and awoke to find (to my surprise and amusement) Jeff Meldrum on a show called Beasts of the Bayou. It seems he was with a group hunting down some kind of mutant wolf/coyote responsible for reported werewolf sightings in Louisiana. I'm not sure what his expertise was in dealing with this as I only caught a bit of the show. Since he seems to be a leading authority on Bigfoot, is it really good for his credibility to be on a fake show dealing with werewolves? His reputation is already suspect because of his dealings with Todd Standing. In either case I don't believe he is doing himself any favors by associating himself with these two endeavors. Just my two cents.

    Incidentally I am in complete agreement with Anon 9:05's post. and pretty much share his/her views word for word. I too, wanted to believe . . . but the facts just don't support it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Meldrum’s taking such a hit on his credibility that he’s got people like Martin Lockley, University of Colorado Denver... And Jeong Yul Kim, Department of Earth Science Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongwon, Chungbuk, Korea... defending his peer reviewed work. Furthermore, and since I have no clue what this “show” is about, there is in fact plenty of song & dance about mutant canines of late (hairless coyote/wolves). With plenty of footage of them also.

      Just for context Curious, my comment at 6:52 would apply perfectly to people who defend creationism. And masks just as perfectly the amount of denial people like you have towards the “facts” that you claim to have understood over the past couple of decades. Time and time again you’ve been presented with facts about the subject in the PGF’s biological tissue, gate, not to mention the fact that the physical evidence it left is turning up in other continents.

      Facts eh?

      Cognitive dissonance... indeed.

      Delete
    2. I figured that it showed that Meldrum is a unscrupled, egomaniacal whore who is willing to lend “credibility” to any zany, moronic cryptozoological nonsense if it gets him a paycheck and increases his celebrity status. But that’s just me.

      Delete
    3. Sure you did Stuey... Did it manage to find you something other than conjecture against his peer reviewed work?

      Delete
    4. LOL - for the record "curious" at 10:07 was not me but I have to admit I don't disagree with his/her assumption. See you later.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I’ll be busy reading these two “peer reviewed” beauties from the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

      “A Test of an Occult-Themed Séance: Examining Anomalous Events, Psychosomatic Symptoms, Transliminality, and Electromagnetic Fields”

      “William Shakespeare: A Study of the Poet and Five Famous Contemporaries Who between Them Used the Rune Ciphers to Reveal His True Identity”

      That’s some cutting edge “science” they’ve got going on there! Ha ha ha ha!

      Delete
    6. Yes Stuey... we did this here the last time you reeled off some of their papers;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/surrounded-by-bigfoot-noises.html?m=0

      You never actually read those papers either. To a racist, the fact that a significant population of the planet's differing ethnicities have religious belief system in reincarnation, might not hold any cultural worth, but for someone who never checks his sources or has an interest in thinking for himself, these alleged occurrences are worthy of being scrutinised by scientific research. Most of the topics, the journal debunks. Shall o go read them for you and publish their conclusions?

      Delete
    7. Ikdummy is in theaters Fall 2018: A low IQ'd nobody from Wales thinks he debate a mythical creature into existence.

      Plaster is Coming! This Fall



      Delete
    8. A Test of an Occult-Themed Séance: Examining Anomalous Events, Psychosomatic Symptoms, Transliminality, and Electromagnetic Fields

      Results
      We first note to the reader that all external events reported in the analysis failed to meet EMPE criteria that could possibly allow a classification of an event as Class 3: likely to be anomalous. In other words, throughout sessions, there was never an occurrence of phenomena on video camera that could not be attributed, at least in part or majority, to the environment or participants. Likewise, no apparitions or light anomalies appeared on camera. No potential PK events were noted in either series and the current study failed to reproduce the previously reported effects of levitation of any object in the laboratory space.

      Delete
    9. Actually Stuey, plaster came and destroyed your religion.

      (Never gets f’n old)

      Delete
    10. I can’t respond now, I’m busy poring through these two “peer reviewed” masterpieces from the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

      “Can Solar Activity Influence the Occurrence of Economic Recessions?”

      “An Experimental Study for Reproduction of Biological Anomalies Reported in the Hoeven 1999 Crop Circle”

      Meldrum is certainly with the right company! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    11. Hey no worries sporto! I’ll be happy to gloss over the results of those papers as well...

      Delete
    12. Don’t bother, we both know that this “journal” is where failed crackpot academics go to have their loony research “peer reviewed” by other dingbats, so dumb rubes like you can jack off to it. Ha ha ha! See you in another month!

      Delete
    13. Can solar activity influence the occurrence of economic recessions?

      CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
      Our results imply that we can project recessions, at least some of them. The solar cycles follow a more or less regular 11-year pattern. Solar cycle projections—including projections for the solar maximums—are available from several reliable sources. The results reported above indicate that we can use these projections to forecast periods of elevated recession risks in the U.S. and other economies. Because of space and time constraints, in this paper we focused on solar cycle links with only a few selected economic time series. Beyond them, there are other series for the U.S. and other countries that seem to follow the patterns of solar cycles. The research scope could be widened to cover consumer confidence, labor productivity, capacity utilization, purchasing manager’s indices (PMI), and other indicators that broadly follow the business cycle pattern.
      Another implication of this research is the possibility of classifying recessions as those which overlap with solar maximums and those falling between them. Are there fundamental differences between these two groups of recessions? Can we say that the recessions closely following solar maximums are triggered by factors related to solar activity, while those occurring during other phases of the solar cycle are caused by shocks of earthly nature such as banking and financial panics? What are the properties of recessions that overlap with solar minimums, including the Great Recession of 2007-09? Does it imply that the counter-cyclical economic policies should be designed eyeing the solar cycle phase?
      In addition to sunspot numbers, it would be interesting to study correlations with economic data for other series related to solar activity for which long-term data is available. One such series is the 10.7 cm radio emission flux denoted as F10 and recorded since 1947. Another series is the disturbance in geomagnetic field measured by Aa, Ap, and Kp indices, with data available from the 1890s and even earlier.
      Above all, a closer look at a broader range of indicators of solar activity could help identify the exact channels of its influence on the economy and society. Correlation of certain economic time series with the solar cycle documented in this paper and other studies tells us little about the nature of the relation between them, leaving it open to criticism that the link is purely coincidental. But what if a strong correlation with the sunspot number series could be confirmed by an even stronger correlation with another indicator of the solar activity directly affecting Earth, such as the intensity of solar flares or CMEs? This would point to the possible channel of solar impact propagation and pave the way for further research on verifying and documenting the exact nature of the impact.
      Research in the nexus of solar activity, recessions and revolutions looks particularly promising. Even as it might be difficult to believe that solar maximums increase the risk of economic recessions, what about Chizhevsky’s claim that solar maximums increase the chances of revolutions? Can we prove that major revolutions overlapping with peaks of solar activity—such as the revolution of 1917 in Russia that brought communists to power and a chain of revolutions in 1989-91 that led to the collapse of the USSR and Soviet Bloc—was not a coincidence? As with recessions, we have obtained results confirming that revolutions do occur more frequently in the years around and after solar maximums. Further research in this area can lead to remarkable discoveries about solar activity influence on human life and behavior.

      Delete
    14. An Experimental Study for Reproduction of Biological Anomalies Reported in the Hoeven 1999 Crop Circle

      Conclusion
      An experiment was conducted to test the validity of previously reported findings of node length variance within cereal crops laying in fields, reportedly from anomalous mechanisms. Therefore, a crop circle was created in The Netherlands by flattening the crop with the well-known board and rope method. The time of the year, the type and maturity of the crop, and the circle’s diameter were identical to those of a formation found in Hoeven, The Netherlands, in 1999. The latter circle was allegedly created by unknown forces in the presence of a ball of light.
      Stems were taken from the control circle for node length measurements. A sampling scheme was applied that was identical to the one used earlier for the Hoeven 1999 formation so that all results could be directly compared. In addition, the time span between creation and sampling and the time span between sampling and performed node length measurements were identical. The control circle did not reveal the strong radial symmetry in node length distribution that was found in the Hoeven 1999 formation. Moreover, the average node length increase was significantly less (11%, compared with 71% for the Hoeven formation), which was attributed to the effect of gravitropism, in agreement with earlier findings by other researchers. A computer simulation demonstrated that differences in accumulated solar energy over the circle area have no effect on node lengthening, which also excludes the effect of sunlight as a potential cause for the Hoeven anomalies.
      Clearly, it was impossible to reproduce exactly all environmental circumstances during the six days between the creation and the sampling of the Hoeven 1999 formation. First, because these are largely unknown, but also because it is not straightforward to reproduce wind, temperature, humidity, soil composition, sunlight, and all aspects that are known to effect plant growth, over a period of six days. Future control experiments could be improved by creating circles in a controlled environment that reproduces temperature, humidity, and wind based on meteorologic records of the environment of the circle to be reproduced. In addition, such an experiment could also be executed in blind fashion, meaning that the samples are measured by independent researchers with no knowledge of the sample positions. This would be particularly important when node lengths are measured by hand, and not automatically by a computer as was the case in our experiement. However, by creating an identical control formation at the same time of the year, in the same geographical area, in the same type of crop, and by applying an identical test protocol, it is fair to assume that “obvious causes” for the observations in the Hoeven 1999 formation should also be revealed to some extent by our control formation. This was not the case.
      To summarize, the node lengthening in the Hoeven formation was experimentally duplicated with significant success. However, no support was found for the hypothesis that the node lengthening in the Hoeven 1999 circle was created by natural causes such as gravitropism or the effect of wind or sun. It is therefore concluded that the node lengthening found in the Hoeven 1999 formation could not be explained and remains anomalous.

      Delete
    15. Oh what a laughing stock! How would Meldrum ever live this down?




      NAAAAAAARGH!! Peer reviewed scientific confirmation of the evidence & subsequent Ichnotaxon... Is peer reviewed scientific confirmation of the evidence & subsequent Ichnotaxon. Sorry it’s at the expense of your RELIGION.

      Delete
  3. Evidence of non evidence , apes? Archaic humans? Whats the difference because neither is proven, Meldrum confirmed that Bigfoot is a homeless negro, ha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Stuey... you’re babbling isn’t making much sense. Are you drunk again?

      (Silly question)

      Delete
  4. Yes, I agree about coyote/wolf hybrids but that is a far cry from "werewolves". But the main point of my comment was what is Meldrum's expertise when it comes to that subject? To answer your other comment I would have to do an in-depth investigation of those defending his peer reviewed work and what that specifically entails which I simply don't have the time for.

    I suppose "facts" are sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. You have facts you accept and I have mine. The fact that stands out clearly though is despite all these technological advances, despite all these (supposed) thousands of witnesses, despite all the years of it's reported existence, despite all the so-called evidence, the world still does not recognize Bigfoot's existence. The fact that another footprint has the "most smallest anatomical detail in similar physical evidence in China" actually raises more red flags to me than convincing me as I would think that such a distance apart would show subtle differences. But think as you please.

    I have to run so please note that any comments from "curious" from this point will not be from me. I will try to rejoin the discussion later today if it warrants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ll save you the time... They’re some of the best scientists of modern times. And I can only assume that since Meldrum is an authority on one of the best known cryptids on the planet, they thought he’d be a good fit? I haven’t even hear of the show and can’t really comment in confidence.

      Labelling tens of thousands of witnesses as “supposed” bears a heavy burden Mr. Curious, but one you can simply ignore in favour for special pleading of course. Despite all the technological advances, despite all the “ supposed thousands of witnesses”, and despite all the years of it's reported existence, despite all the “so-called evidence”... it’s led to the hominin’s physical evidence being published in journals. It’s led to the best geneticists in the world conducting DNA studies. Tell me... How closed are your theory group to debunking “Bigfoot”. You see, the way I see it, it just keeps developing the other way? You seem to be getting further from what’s allegedly so obvious and “factual”.

      “The fact that another footprint has the "most smallest anatomical detail in similar physical evidence in China" actually raises more red flags to me than convincing me as I would think that such a distance apart would show subtle differences.”
      ... not if said hominin emerged from Asia. And would you expect to see a difference in the foot anatomy of a modern homo sapien from the US and China? Hmmm, indeed, think as you please.

      Delete
    2. Well, it does tend to prove that signs of hoaxed footprints are identical throughout the world and that a dishonest whore looking to make money and get his face on television shows which push comically inane ideas will do just about anything, including publishing a non-sequitur filled article in a fringe “peer reviewed” journal — a journal which also includes studies on water dowsing, sea monsters, seances, and any other laughably absurd subject you can dream up. Thanks for clarifying!

      Delete
    3. All talk and 0 evidence , sad individual , peer reviewed journal and Meldrum himself has no proof of Bigfoot. You lose again , but you come back in 8 years because right now it's 8 years and no proof of Bigfoot :( ha ha ha , you really are a clown

      Delete
    4. Sorry Stuey... You would have to first demonstrate how such prints were hoaxed. It's impossible for a hoaxer from another continent to guess the exact same archaic foot morphology, and then find a method of having this morphology arranged in a trackway, whereby such a trackway encompasses different footballs only indicative of a genuine biological foot... And THEN ensures that such a trackway is found by, & then fools a government employee. That’s a little leap of religious proportions.

      A journal is a journal, and an editorial board by PhD's, is an editorial board by PhD's. Have you seen the Noble winner who has things to say about the likes of Nature journal? Of course, nothing will ever come as a means of showing what's actually IN the journal's bunk. But that's the way pseudosceptics apply their all so advanced "scepticism", of course. Do you think someone as intellectually backward as you using the word "fringe" suddenly makes scientific confirmation of the evidence & subsequent Ichnotaxon bunk? Popular topics in their journals are consciousness, Psi, sociology of science, healing, physics, biology, medicine, mediumship, intuition, anomalies, quantum mechanics, REG/RNG, subtle energy, EMF, parapsychology, health, UFO, remote viewing, mind-matter, interaction, paradigms, alternative energy, the brain, dreams, LENR, global consciousness, evolution, cold fusion, spirituality, synchronicity, xenoglossy, skepticism, cancer, philosophy, anthropology earthquakes, gravity, genetics, biochemistry, EEG, astronomy, and cosmology. I'd be MORE than happy to read any of those subjects, and plenty of forward thinking people would too.

      Unfortunately gor tou the journal has nothing in it that you can interpret into racism, so it wouldn’t interest you in the slightest.

      Delete
    5. A low IQ'd nobody from Wales thinks he debate a mythical creature into existence.

      Delete
    6. You seem to be getting angry there Stuey? It doesn’t matter how many times you religiously write “0 evidence” in motivated reasoning. It doesn’t matter how many times you try and save your threadbare religion, you’re not providing anyone with a reason to not consider peer reviewed science. In contrast, it’s not my words or my debate that brings these hominins into existence... its the data that’s being peer reviewed.

      I have peer review.

      You have a religion.

      Delete
    7. I’ll return later, I’m busy trying to find out the identity of the “Noble” winner you mentioned. Ha ha ha ha!

      Delete
    8. Make that a typing error as well as a religion. And you and me both know you’re way too angry to let this go.

      See you in a few minutes.

      : p

      Delete
    9. Five comments to my one, you reek of desperation , shall I finish you off? Where's the recognized species, where was the news report saying this is it everyone, the wood ape or archaic humans living in our shadows? Ha, you don't have it, the stories and footprints aren't cutting it and you can't up the game. You shouldn't call out others considering your typing, even the worst here are running rings around you, seriously out of your leaque but you come talk smack when you have some evidence, evidence ok, not stories and footprints and fools papers full of wishful thinking ....8 years and no proof of Bigfoot :(

      Delete
    10. AAAAAAAAARGH!! There he is maaan! Something tells me you didn’t get much satisfaction, didn’t go far did you?

      And talk about “desperation”! Where was the national news of any one of a million little breakthroughs in anthropology in the last few years, Stuey? You call this journal fringe one minute, and then rhetorically demand it be in the national news? Come on now Stuey, make up your mind, you need to keep track of your drivel dear boy! Actually “stories and footprints” ARE cutting it. Because they’re being peer reviewed. That’s the game being “upped” right there. How’s it going your end?

      Here we go buddy. Evidence;
      http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/024.jpg

      ... Shouldn’t you be blowing these fool’s theories out of the water? You haven’t been presented with a species classification, you’ve been presented with scientific confirmation of the evidence & subsequent Ichnotaxon. What you gonna do about it Stuey? Stamping and crying isn’t “cutting it”, as you say.

      “Leaque”?

      Delete
    11. Who taught ikdummy the word "rhetorical"?

      Wales' village idiot trying to debate US apemen into existence.

      Delete
    12. Actually Stuey... it’s the data that’s bringing these hominins into existence. I just can’t understand why you’re having such a difficult time explaining away a fringe journal??

      Delete
    13. Bigfoot don't exist, so no.

      Delete
    14. Ha, so predictable , look how desperate you get, fringe journals are garbage ,ask Melba, she made the news, as a laughing stock, so much for your peer reviewed journal , Bigfoot doesn't exist because as you've constantly shown here there is no proof of Bigfoot, the burden fals on you and ....8 years and no proof of Bigfoot :(

      Delete
    15. Produce one. Not a film of a costume, not a plaster cast, produce one of the 10,000 Bigfoot you claim live in the US. That's 5,000,000 lbs of flesh and bones to choose from. Even a 200 lb small bigfoot will do.

      What, all you have is rhetoric and belief? Keep the faith, ikdummy. Ha!

      Delete
    16. So Ikdummy, is Stuey fake DS?

      I've never read one exchange between you and Steuy. Seems he does not believe, and he's correct in saying Patty doesn't. Bunch of clueless non researching morons studying a person in a suit, trying to convince the world this is what we're dealing with. What a crock!

      Delete
    17. And tell me rhetorical boy, how would one go about showing you existence of any human or non-human primate? Are you putting such impossible rhetorical safety nets on your faith (motivated reasoning), that you now want me to knock your door with a specimen? Sorry Stuey, it doesn’t wash. To confirm the existence of animals these days, we have things like footage. That, plus the physical evidence in track castings was enough to confirm the existence of the Bile Ape.

      You haven’t provided any substance to the notion that the PGF is a man in a costume, just blind faith. In contrast, I can provide hard data for a 60 year period that offers average height and weight ratios for many of your “10,000 Bigfoot”.

      The theme here is astoundingly consistent... you have a religion, I have science.

      Delete
    18. “Bile” is about the only thing you’ve been spewing!

      Delete
    19. Stuey... Melba published her own journal. You do understand how the journal process works, right? You do realise that your deflection does not remotely apply here, right? Nope, the burden falls on me to demonstrate that people are warranted in investing enthusiasm in the existence of hominins. And I’ve done that by referencing peer reviewed data.

      What have you got to convince people that doesn’t stand up? I mean really now?

      Delete
    20. I’ve been making you look like a “Bile Ape” so that’s something!

      Delete
    21. Sorry Bruce, your comment didn’t make any sense. And if I were you I’d go back and address any one of a hundred reasons to laugh at your “evidence” on the other comment section.

      Bye bye!

      Delete
    22. ikdummy "how would one go about showing you existence of any human or non-human primate?"

      Produce one, you idiot. Living or dead. For the billionth time, how thick-headed can one Welsh fop be?

      Delete
    23. Sorry Stuey... That’s putting impossible rhetorical safety nets on your faith (motivated reasoning). I can’t show you a dead one as I would need to know how to track one.

      I can however show you footage of one, multiple versions of footage in fact, and I can show you peer reviewed data from one version of that footage. Now considering I have PhD’s agreeing with me on that, you now need a little bit more than just blind faith to shift that burden, should that not be good enough.

      Delete
    24. You don't need to track anything, Welsh fop. Stay in your asylum.

      No one on earth has ever produced a bigfoot or mermaid living or dead and no one ever will. Not as much mermaid role-play and sightings but just as much bigfoot as there are mermaids produced.

      Delete
    25. Nobody has ever produced a Bigfoot body, because nobody has funded a consorted professional effort to use the readily available data. Nobody is seeing mermaids Stuey, and the physical evidence for them is certainly not being published in journals.

      Delete
    26. The same number of mermaids and bigfoot produced. Everything else is superfluous and missing the point.

      Delete
    27. Um... nope. There aren’t three databases of mermaid reports. There is not tens of thousands of years of anthropological data for mermaids. There is not one shred of evidence for mermaids. If mermaids don’t exist off the back of that, there would be no reason for anyone to attempt to find a cadaver.

      The reality concerning “Bigfoot” is the total opposite. A negative proof fallacy, a logical fallacy in the face of hard data does not equate to a mythical comparison. There are so many logical fallacies at the ends of those fat fingers, it’s incredible.

      Delete
    28. Doesn't matter. There are still the same number of mermaids and bigfoot bodies produced. Zero.

      If you disagree, what are number of bigfoot bodies vs mermaid bodies produced?

      Delete
    29. Um... No, it does matter. Because special pleading is a logical fallacy. It might be news to you, but clever people don’t tend to lean on intellectual fallacies for their best logical arguments.

      Dumbo.

      Delete
    30. It does matter. Imaginary creatures will always produce 0 bodies. Why do you always deliberately ignore aspects of reality that are unfavorable to your point of view?


      Schooled.

      Delete
    31. Not based on nearly every zoological breakthrough concerning primates known to man. Intelligent, biological entities, notably primates, need tracking. If you don’t do that, then bodies don’t tend to turn up. Because primates have never left very big fossil trails.

      I am embarrassed to have to be pointing out the type of stuff a ten year old should be learning. But then again, I did have to explain to you how humans are primates, didn’t I?

      Delete
    32. Still 0 bigfoot and 0 mermaid bodies. 0 chance of anyone producing one, ever.

      6 billion humans in the world. Pretty easy tracking intelligent biological creatures known as humans. Imaginary creatures, not so much.

      Delete
    33. Nope, it simply articulates how little you understand about primates, how field biology works, as well as basic zoological history. I’m exchanging with a child.

      6 billion humans in the world... And the Bili Ape, a human sized primate was only tracked to discovery in the early 2000’s. 6 billion humans, and we have every piece of comparative evidence at this stage of research and more, that warrants further field studies to track “Bigfoot”.

      Delete
    34. IktomiWednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:32:00 PM PDT
      Humans are primates, by the way.

      BBM o l jWednesday, July 8, 2015 at 3:32:00 PM PDT
      IKTOMI----------YOU ARE SO STUPID!!!
      NO THEY'RE. NOT!!!
      Sheesh!

      IktomiWednesday, July 8, 2015 at 3:35:00 PM PDT
      How Do We Know Humans Are Primates? Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It confirms that humans are primates and that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. There is only about a 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code.

      Http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/does-this-coast-to-coast-guest-have.html

      Delete
  5. Where have you done that? Who have you proved Bigfoot to? Here's a whole site full of Bigfoot enthusiasts and they all say you're full of crap, it must be nice and warm where you keep your head stuffed. Reference garbage and keep crying when people call you out, that's you every day, no closer to proving Bigfoot, DS is right, you're connected to this site so you must be collecting those Bigfoot dollars you disdain so. Ds ignore this guy, you're obviously right about him

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many of these enthusiasts can you list off who think I’m “full of crap”? Sorry Stuey... I can assure you I’m having a real good time using you this way. I’ve got all the time in the world for you Stuey. Still don’t see anything but blind faith against scientific data. Praying hard there Stuey.

      So are you DS, or are you talking to DS??

      You’re confused there, Stuey.

      (CREASED!!!!)

      Delete
    2. Oh i'm 100% right about Ikdummy!

      You haven’t provided any substance to the notion that the PGF is a man in a costume, just blind faith."
      HOLY CRAP ARE YOU THE KING OF STUPID! NOT RESEARCHING IS BLIND FAITH YOU DING BAT!

      Delete
    3. I’ve got that one for my archive on you, Stuey. Jeez, that’s a cracker.

      Delete
    4. Bruce... you don’t research. You are a self-proclaimed researcher that takes videos of brush and then looks for pareidolia in stills. You have not one person who endorses your images.

      Wakey, wakey... that doesn’t change just because you’ve had milk & cookies and a nice snooze.

      Delete
    5. Every one who researchers know's i'm #1, hands down!

      I did a google search of the tallest lady in 1970, GEE SHE LOOKS LIKE PATTY!!

      http://www.reckontalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Tallest-Giant-Women-in-The-World-11.jpg

      BLIND FAITH IN PATTY, BECAUSE YOU DON''T RESEARCH = WHAT A DING BAT!

      Delete
    6. Hey, Doc Squatch, if you want a good laugh, read about the Skookum cast fiasco that occurred many years ago. Meldrum and some of Iktomi’s other heroes were duped into thinking that it was a Bigfoot body cast when it was obvious to any buffoon that it was an elk lay:

      http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/

      You’ll be further entertained by Iktomi’s hilarious attempts to defend this debacle!

      Delete
    7. Bruce is as much obsessed with me as he is Matt (probably because we both didn’t buy his persistent emails for praise and attention). Bruce... you have this vendetta against Matt, the blog, and are jealous of the people like Dodson who do get to be in articles. It doesn’t take Sherlock to work out you’ve probably been rejected by Matt, harassed him just as much as me and all the other poor buggers I saw repeatedly copied into your emails. Bruce is about a comment or two away from demanding proof of my identity and whereabouts, but the way.

      It’s ok Bruce. Stuey was the same a few years ago. He was obsessed with the idea of me being an admin. Believed I was Shawn... as well as everyone else on here, who was then apparently just me, attacking him with a psy-ops experiment from a US airforce base. When you take away a man’s religion, they kind of go a little doolali. Poor bugger spent so much time worrying who I was he didn’t know whether he was coming or going. Use that as a lesson Bruce. You chase me around you’re gonna end up losing your religion. Look where it’s got Stuey... a shell of a man.

      Learn from the example Bruce.

      Delete
    8. Brucey baby... The tallest woman in the world doesn’t provide a magic SFX defying monkey suit. Come on Bruce. Address the data... not deflect. You don’t research, you take footage of trees.

      And to more deflection... Stuey, why are you talking about the Skookum Cast? First Melba and now this? You come across frantic dear boy. You need to be addressing the Patterson Gimlim footage, and it’s subsequent physical evidence. Stay on topic now Stuey! Even if the Skookum cast is bunk, does that provide you with the data that’s demanded of you in this thread?

      Futile busy idiot.

      Delete
    9. Oh and Stuey? I’ll humour you on your Skookum Cast link...

      "I see hooves placed within the lay upon rising."
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/comment-page-1/

      Does this source ^ make out like proponents are in denial about known animal sign in the cast? If so...

      "Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.'"
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      ... There was an acknowledgment from the most earliest moments of analysing this evidence that known animal tracks were found to be in the Wallow as well as the alleged Sasq'ets body impressions... It was an Elk Wallow after all. This is an obvious effort by Crowley to use an already acknowledged contamination against the source's authenticity, seemingly creating a false premise from the point of view of the proponents to distance themselves from any credibility and so that it's easier for them to counter the source. Smoke and mirror. That's actually a pretty messed up.

      Now... Back to the topic of your latest faith-struggle, Stuey.

      Delete
    10. OMG, look at you ranting, 5 to 1 everyone ,desperate and sad, sorry I hurt your feelings , go back to your imaginary world of giant hairy men, you obviously need it, ha ha ha

      Delete
    11. Nargh, that was your f’n schooling. So tell me, are you DS, or talking to DS this time? Both?? Something about a rant?


      DSThursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:06:00 PM PST
      Where have you done that? Who have you proved Bigfoot to? Here's a whole site full of Bigfoot enthusiasts and they all say you're full of crap, it must be nice and warm where you keep your head stuffed. Reference garbage and keep crying when people call you out, that's you every day, no closer to proving Bigfoot, DS is right, you're connected to this site so you must be collecting those Bigfoot dollars you disdain so. Ds ignore this guy, you're obviously right about him


      LOL!! Oh, and imaginary giant hairy men shouldn’t really be finding themselves in science journals now... Should they?

      Delete
    12. DS is Jealous of IK, Robert Dodson, Meldrum, Matt K and now Patterson and Gimlin. Then he has the nerve to accuse someone else of living in an imaginary world. Dr. Draws A Face, back to tree porn with you. Please know Im laughing as I type this.

      Delete
    13. 4 more rambling replies due here, journals were debunked, anything new? No.

      Delete
    14. You’ve never debunked a single thing in 8 years Stuey... let alone a journal. Have you decided if you’re DS or talking to DS yet?

      Delete
    15. Everyone let me show you what insanity looks like, Iktomi can no longer keep the crazy in, I'm sure his neighbors avoid him although he likely lives Unabomber like in some remote cabin , we can only hope.Whenever he gets really desperate he likes to chime in as one of his alter egos and attack Dr Squatch, he obviously has something invested in this site as he seems to know so much about what "Matt" thinks. Maybe "Matt" you should chime in for once about this raving loon who attacks anyone who questions his bullshit journals and footprints and stories . This fervent froth at the mouth madness is disturbing , this guy must be a character created by this site, come on "Matt", set the record straight

      Delete
    16. No one's talking to you anymore "Iktomi " so feel free to blather, its going unread since it's just lather, rinse, repeat with you, go to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel, at least he's showing you something different and new

      Delete
    17. Yes, I'm going to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    18. Yes I'm going to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    19. Ds can't even come up with one experts name that endorses his bollocks and now he's gone into anon mode to avoid answering the question
      clearly he's nothing but a troll !

      Joe

      Delete
    20. Yes I'm going to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    21. Ignoring anon Iktomi , yes I'm going to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    22. “Everyone...” oh CRINGE. Do you think you have an audience, Stuey? Tell me Stuey, what on this entire comment section from you would cause anyone on the planet to be desperate? Of course... because nobody else in their right minds would think that a born again chiropractor who believes lionmen are turning into solid objects is loony, right?

      “PLEEEEEEAAASSE MATT, COME AND TELL IKTOMI OFF!!!”

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Are you now pleading for the admin Stuey???!!!!! If you’re gonna questions the authenticity of the evidence I reference, maybe you should have something to back it up. Don’t plead for the admin like a pathetic sack of excrement. What a turn of events this has been eh? Someone who’s boasted about “taking the blog down” now begging for help from an admin. Matt doesn’t care about you Stuey.

      Delete
    23. I shall also go to Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    24. Its so much better to ignore him,sad individual, see you guys at Dr Squatch's YouTube channel

      Delete
    25. And by “ignoring me” you mean publishing anything up to ten sockpuppet accounts name dropping me and other people who you believe might offend me?

      That’s what a faith-struggle does to a man. A grown man. Wow.

      Delete
    26. The highlight of my day has been Stuey, the person boasting to have taken down this blog... begging for Matt to come save him.

      My day’s work is complete. Don’t let it ruin your life, Stuart.

      Delete
    27. Wow, angry when deprived of attention ^
      Joe

      Delete
    28. You’re way too “satisfied” to leave just yet, eh Stuey?

      ; )

      Delete
    29. Your ranting and rage are priceless

      Delete
    30. Gimme something to “rage” about Stuey... I’m just about done here. Bored. But something tells me you’re gonna be thinning about me aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall day.

      Delete
    31. I do wonder what it's like to be insane whereas you have firsthand experience

      Delete
    32. 4:18, Iktomi talks about us spending too much time here, but are we the ones who’ve submitted over 50 comments on this thread alone?

      Delete
    33. ^yes. you and your "alters" absolutely have done that Stu you damn idiot.

      Delete
    34. Do you think he actually believes that he’s part of some group of super trolls?

      Something about “insane”?

      Delete
    35. Day late and dolar short as usual^

      Delete
    36. You’ve been up all night, probably been up for days... understandable that you think a whole day has gone by.

      I noticed you didn’t have anything for the timeline source that tucked your own argument up?

      Delete
  6. Goodnight, enjoy your dreams of giant hairy men , it is cool to imagine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your faith-struggle got a little worse today Stuey. Maybe you should imagine a life where you don’t have any control over the world of Bigfoot.

      It might help you to cope.

      Delete
    2. Its easy to control fairy tales but when you believe in things that don't exist then I'm afraid you'll need to fall back on faith, enjoy your cult

      Delete
    3. Stuey... the theme right through this entire comment section has centred around your pathological requirement to protect your belief system which is akin to a religion that you self-identify with. The theme of this comment section shown that you have faith, and I have the scientific method.

      You’ve been up all night worrying about me? I slept like a baby.

      : )

      Delete
    4. Funny how you deny being away from here for a day and then admit it, but you are a confused individual ,I also noticed your need to have everyone believe you're so calm and collected when your rants and anger prove the opposite as well as how you rush back to get the last word hours after people stop commenting , I think all your conflicts and junk scientific evidence have made you a real wreck, plus your conspiracy theories about multiple people being one person . You go ahead and comment back, I'm just going to ignore you for the rest of the day and watch you starve for attention , beating you is no challenge

      Delete
    5. Hmmm... now I’m confused. So are you claiming I’ve turned up a day late, or have I been here all along? You’re so fatigued that you’re not making sense Stuey. And if you didn’t notice, you’re here rushing back.

      You got smoked. And I’m back here to read you deflect, worm, cry and claim you’re going to ignore me, like a child. You can’t let this go Stuey. You’ve got too much emotional investment in this... and you’re my little dancing monkey.

      Delete
    6. ^ Joe in manic phase will crash shortly when he entertains the possibility that there are no 10 foot tall hairy men hiding in the woods.

      Delete
    7. You’re not doing a very good job of ignoring me Stuey. You’re just itching for some satisfaction eh? And I’m not about to entertain mere faith in the face of scientific method.

      How would you go about persuading someone with an ounce of intelligence to favour your religion over scientific data?

      Delete
    8. Keep your brain capacity out of this, Stuey... it’s science you need.

      Delete
    9. ... prophets left after SS destroyed them.

      Delete